( 2025:HHC:45492 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWPOA No.710 of 2019 Decided on: 20.12.2025 __________________________________________________________ Sachin Masand and others .....Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others ....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioners: Mr. Virender Kumar, Advocate vice Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Sumit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for Respondents No.1 and 2-State. None for Respondent No.3-H.P. Subordinate Selection Board, though represented. Ranjan Sharma, Judge Petitioners, Sachin Masand; Sashi Kumar; and Vinod Kumar, have filed CWP No.9773 of 2014, which on establishment of State Administrative Tribunal was transferred to the said Tribunal and upon its abolition, has now been re-transferred to this Court as CWPOA No.710 of 2019, seeking the following reliefs:- “23 (a) Issue a writ in nature of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the petitioners, against the post of 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:45492 ) Agriculture Extension Officer advertised vide Advertisement Annexure P-1 dated 15.09.2012 as to which petitioners have been declared as successful amongst the 10 successful candidates vide declaration of result dated 1.1.2014 Annexure P-6. 23(b) Issue a writ in nature of mandamus further directing respondent to issue appointment letters to the petitioners and consider them in service from the date other similarly situated persons have been given appointment pursuant to declaration of result Annexure P-6 with all other consequential benefits.” FACTUAL MATRIX: 2. Grievance of the petitioners is that H.P. Subordinate Selection Board, Hamirpur-Respondent No.3 issued an Advertisement dated 15.09.2012 [Annexure P-1] for filling up 12 posts of Agriculture Extension Officers in the Department of Agriculture of State Government. It is averred that though the petitioners were fully qualified and eligible and had appeared for screening test and they were declared successful on 21.10.2013. Petitioners were called for Interview on 31.12.2013 by Respondent No.3-Board, but, final result was declared on 01.01.2014 for 10 posts vis-à-vis 12 advertised posts of Agriculture Extension Officers by the Respondent-Board. It is averred that though the names of the petitioners were included in the final result but the Respondents 3 ( 2025:HHC:45492 ) did not issue formal appointment letters to the petitioners for which they have made a representation to the Respondents vide Annexure P-10. It is averred that denial of appointment to the petitioners despite their eligibility and despite being educationally qualified, coupled with the fact that their names were included in final select list, was not in conformity with law. 2(i). It is in this backdrop that the instant petition was filed by the petitioners, seeking directions to the Respondents to issue appointment letters to the petitioners, for the posts of Agriculture Extension Officers, in pursuance to Advertisement dated 15.09.2012 and declaration of result on 01.01.2014 [Annexure P-6], whereby, the petitioners were declared to be successful candidates. Prayer for issuing appointment letters with consequential benefits has been made in the instant petition. STAND OF RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2 IN REPLY- AFFIDAVIT: 3. Pursuant to issuance of notice on 24.12.2024, the State Authorities have filed Reply-Affidavit dated 31.03.2015 of Director, Agriculture, Himachal Pradesh. 3(i). Perusal of Reply-Affidavit indicates that an 4 ( 2025:HHC:45492 ) Advertisement for filling up 12 posts of Agriculture Extension Officers on contract basis was issued on 27.04.2012 by Respondent No.3-Board. Reply-Affidavit further indicates that pursuant to selection process, Respondent No.3-Board had furnished list of 10 selected candidates for appointment of Agriculture Extension Officers, vide letter dated 04.01.2024 [Annexure R/II], with the request to issue appointment letters after verifying credential and genuineness of Certificates/ Diploma/Degree of the respective candidates. Reply- Affidavit further indicates that out of ten selected/ recommended candidates seven candidates have cleared their B.Sc. from CSKVV, Palampur and two candidates have cleared their Degree from HNBU, Srinagar, [Garwal] Uttra Khand and one candidate from Meerut. 3(ii). Para-5 of Preliminary Submissions of Reply- Affidavit indicates that seven eligible candidates who possessed their Degrees from CSKVV, Palampur, were issued offer of appointment by the Respondents. So far as remaining three candidates are concerned, matter was taken up with the Registrar, CSKVV, Palampur, for 5 ( 2025:HHC:45492 ) clarification as to whether the B.Sc. Agriculture/ M.Sc. Agriculture ICAR should be considered for employment or not. Matter reached the State Government and vide order dated 05.03.2015 [Annexure R/III], the State Government directed the Authorities to consider the case of the petitioners on the basis of Recruitment and Promotion Rules. 3(iii). Pursuant to directions dated 05.03.2015 [Annexure R/III], appointment letters were issued to the petitioners on 07.03.2015 [Annexure R/IV (colly)] with the Reply-Affidavit appointing them as Agriculture Extension Officers on contract basis. Accordingly, all the three petitioners, namely, Sachin Masand; Sashi Kumar; and Vinod Kumar, were issued offer of appointment on 07.03.2015 [at page 123 to 146 of the paper book]. STAND OF RESPONDENT NO.3 IN REPLY- AFFIDAVIT: 4. Pursuant to the issuance of notice issued by this Court on 24.12.2024, Respondent No.3-Board has also filed Reply-Affidavit dated 23.02.2015 of Secretary, H.P. Subordinate Services Selection Board, Hamirpur. 6 ( 2025:HHC:45492 ) 4(i). It is admitted in the Reply-Affidavit that Respondent No.3 advertised 12 posts of Agriculture Extension Officers vide Advertisement No.23 of 2012 dated 15.09.2012 alongwith posts of other categories [Annexure P-1] and the petitioners had applied for post in question within stipulated period, however, no document/certificate was required to be submitted with the application form as the same shall be checked at the time of personal interview. It is denied that the petitioners had submitted all the documents with their application forms. It is admitted that the petitioners were allowed provisionally to appear in written/screening test conducted on 21.10.2013 and they qualified the same and they were directed to appear for the interview being conducted w.e.f. 30.12.2013 and 31.12.2013. It is averred that after completing all codal formalities, the result was declared on 01.01.2014 and selected candidates, including petitioners were recommended to be appointed by the requisitioning authority on 04.01.2024 and offer of appointment be given to selected candidates, after verifying their credentials and genuineness of Certificates 7 ( 2025:HHC:45492 ) /Diploma/Degree under intimation to the Replying Respondent. 5. Upon listing of the case today, Learned Counsel, for the petitioners, is not in a position to inform this Court as to whether the petitioners in pursuance to offer of appointment dated 07.03.2015 [Annexure R/IV (colly) have reported for duty or not. 6. Matter was passed over, so as to enable the State Counsel to have Instructions as to whether the petitioners have joined their respective appointments as Agriculture Extension Officers on the basis of offer of appointment dated 07.03.2015 [Annexure R-IV (colly) or not. 6(i). Learned State Counsel informed this Court, by way of Instructions dated 20.12.2025 that pursuant to the recommendations made by Respondent No.3- Board, the petitioners were issued offer of appointment on 07.03.2015 [Annexure R-IV (colly) have reported for duty and joined on 12.03.2015 in case of petitioner No.1-Sachin Masand and on 13.03.2015 in case of petitioners No.2 and 3, namely, Sashi Kumar and Vinod Kumar, respectively, in the Respondent- 8 ( 2025:HHC:45492 ) Department [Instructions Taken on Record]. 7. Heard, Mr. Virender Kumar, Advocate vice Mr. Mukul Sood, Learned Counsel, for the petitioners and Mr. Sumit Sharma, Learned Deputy Advocate General, for Respondents No.1 and 2-State. However, none has put in appearance on behalf of Respondent No.3-H.P. Subordinate Selection Board, Hamirpur. ANALYSIS: 8. Taking into account the entirety of facts and circumstances and the Instructions dated 20.12.2025 [Taken on Record] the instant petition is disposed of for following reasons:- 8(i). Pursuant to the selection for post of Agriculture Extension Officers, the State Authorities have issued the offer of appointment to the petitioner on 07.03.2015 [Annexure R-IV (colly)] and they have joined as such on 12.03.2015 and 13.03.2015 respectively. 8(ii). Since the petitioners have joined, on appointment no further orders are required in instant petition, except that once the Respondent-Board had recommended 10 candidates against 12 advertised 9 ( 2025:HHC:45492 ) posts and the petitioners fall in merit amongst recommended candidates at Serial Nos.7, 8 and 10 of the merit list [at page 121 of the paper book], then, the petitioners are entitled for appointment as Agriculture Extension Officers from the date other similarly placed candidates who were recommended by the Respondent No.3-Board were appointed as Agriculture Extension Officers on 02.07.2014 and had joined on 14.07.2014. In case, the appointment of the petitioners was delayed due to administrative reasons or pending verification of credentials or certificates then, upon completion of said process, the petitioners have a right for appointment from the date other incumbents were appointed. Action of the State Authorities in not appointing the petitioners from the date his counterparts were appointed shall amount to disturbing the merit of the petitioners vis-à-vis other. Accordingly, the rights of the petitioners vis-à-vis counterparts of the same selection need to be safeguarded and balanced by extending the benefit of deemed appointment as Agriculture Extension Officers from 14.07.2014 i.e. the date from which other similarly 10 ( 2025:HHC:45492 ) placed incumbents had joined as such, on the basis of appointment orders dated 02.07.2014 vis-à-vis the appointment given to the petitioners belatedly on 07.03.2015 leading to their joining on 12/13.03.2015, but on notional basis, without past monetary benefits. 8(iii). Notably, since the petitioners have not worked from the date of “notional appointment” [14.07.2014 till actual joining on 13/14.07.2015], then, the benefits shall accrue “notionally” but without any monetary benefits on the principle of no work no pay. 8(iv). The rights of the petitioners need to be balanced at par with counterparts so as to ensure parity and equal treatment with alike recommendees. Denial shall lead to civil consequences and depriving them of their right for service benefits like seniority during contractual service and shortening the eligibility for regularization also. Such inaction shall lead to earlier regularization of counterparts [including persons who are lower in merit] prior to the petitioners. In normal parlance this Court would have referred the matter to the State Authorities but since the fact reveal that the petitioners have been denied benefit of appointment and 11 ( 2025:HHC:45492 ) resultant service benefits due to administrative reasons, therefore, the charge of discrimination and disparity needs to be removed and the rights of same set of incumbents i.e. [petitioners vis-à-vis counterparts] of the common selection, who were commonly recommended for appointment as Agriculture Extension Officers need to be safeguarded and adequately balanced, which is so done, in terms of this order. DIRECTIONS: 9. In view of above discussion and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant petition is allowed, in the following terms:- (i) Appointment of the petitioners as Agriculture Extension Officers on contract on 07.03.2015 [Annexure R-IV (colly)], as in Instruction dated 20.12.2025 is upheld; (ii). State Authorities shall adjust the rights of the petitioners with counterparts-juniors by modifying the appointment dated 07.03.2015 [Annexure R-IV (colly)], for service benefits at par with counterparts including juniors appointment on 02.07.2014 and their joining on 14.07.2014 in terms of the placement recorded by Respondent No.3-Board by passing necessary orders within two months from today; 12 ( 2025:HHC:45492 ) (iii) State Authorities shall grant all “notional benefits” including seniority, pay fixation [but without past-arrears] to the petitioners as Agriculture Extension Officers, from the date counterparts, including juniors were appointed as Agriculture Extension Officers by the State Authorities; (iv) Claim for consequential benefits, qua actual monetary benefits or past arrears is declined, on the principle of “no work no pay”; (v) State Authorities shall complete entire exercise as in direction No. (i) to (iii) above within two months from today; and (vi) Costs made easy for respective parties. In the aforesaid terms, instant petition stands disposed of alongwith pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Ranjan Sharma) Judge December 20, 2025 [Bhardwaj]